Is this spam?

NO...that's processed pork...

This is spam...

Looks more like I envisioned chicken man from the Armed Forces Radio Network.

Unfortunately, other moderators than you eliminated the best west coast spam-stopper you ever had. The ill effects remain conspicuous.

Don't let your new-found power and your obsession to respond to every post with multiple Google references go to your head.

Not everyone appreciates your domination of the forum.

From what I understand, SPAM is on the list of the top 10 foods that will last almost forever.

Out of yearning for the good old days, I tried some spam again recently. It is now consigned forever to the good old days.

Endured a 5 week power outage after a Super Typhoon hit Guam. Ate Spam, flown in daily, weekly, etc. by the USAF and USNav. Nothing else available. No power to cook or refrigerate. Spam grilled, out of the can, every way we could imagine. Can't stand the stuff now, but Hawaiian Wal Marts have aisles long shelves of it in dozens of flavors. Nuts. Don't know how they can stand it. Definitely relegated to the "Passed".

Spam is really salty, so you need something really sweet with it, like pineapple works well.....all served on a bed of rice...

Solar eagle that looks yummy.

Now that we have Watcho Vision, when will we have Smello Vision & Tasteo Vision ?

When we start directly plugging our brains into the internet...it all breaks down to electrical signals...

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2111371-face-electrodes-let-you-taste-and-chew-in-virtual-reality/

Never seen anything bad here before, so keep up the good work guys! ��

" Remarkably, no one has gone mad with moderator power on CR4 yet. (Admittedly the temptation exists, at times."

This reminds me of the famous 1963 Milgram electric shock psychology experiment. The participants were divided into "teachers" and "learners". Those selected as teachers were told that by pushing any one of three buttons they could administer electric shocks of different intensities (slight, moderate, severe) to the learners, as punishment for wrong answers to prepared questions. The buttons actually did nothing, but the learners were told to deliberately give wrong answers and to act as if they were receiving electric shocks. The experiment showed that, give a man authority over others, a set of strict rules to follow, and a button to push to enforce those rules, and he will push that button until those under him are writhing in pain and crying for mercy.

Scary! And no doubt true. Reminds me of the Concentration Camp experiment in the high school. Boy was that a disaster.

Yes, that was true.

The concentration camp experiment was by Phillip Zimbardo, I believe.

Milgram's study has been used to rationalize sadistic behavior by 'normal' people, and to make generalizations which far extend beyond the scientific scope of his work. Let us not forget sample bias in the experiment - a group of undergraduates from one American university. And let us not forget that, as real as peer pressure is, and "normative" pressure in human groups for behavior that is objectively unacceptable, the whole study could have gone entirely the other way, if a few strong individuals in the group reacted differently.

CR4 moderators have in my experience been moderate, and as a group don't display any 'moderator power madness'... and why should they? As long as there is a fair role model in place, it shouldn't happen. It would take pressure in the other direction to 'normalize' more severe actions.

That being said, I have enjoyed the pleasure of participating in (another) rather severely moderated site. Infractions were very rare and offenders swiftly dispatched. Harmony and tolerance prevailed to the 99%.... Severity does work. Of course we do then miss out on the real contributions of the occasionally badly behaved...

Thank you. Thank you. You said what I thought, but could not figure out how to express. Good words!

Well you can't beat fact checking, to see if you really are right or wrong. I won't admit to senile but I do vaguely recall the conclusion I remember agreeing with, personally....

My error: the sample in the original study was not a group of undergrads, they were men who answered a newspaper ad and were paid to participate. Still a biased sample, but perhaps that doesn't matter.

Your error: "..vague claims of over-reaching citations and an short piece of fiction in which the experiments had different results. ....The attempt to discredit the research by suggesting that the results could have beed different and had the results been different, it could have not had the same conclusions is quite remarkable....."

In fact, Milgram's own replications of the experiment tested various conditions to determine their effect on the outcome. Among the conditions tested:

"Social Support Condition:
The presence of others who are seen to disobey the authority figure reduces the level of obedience to 10%."

There were also several other conditions that reduced the percentage of obedience substantially, which you can read about here:

https://www.simplypsychology.org/milgram.html

So there it is, the supposed "fiction" was in fact part of Milgram's own findings. Do you ever hear this cited? Is it ever used to qualify the broad generalizations based on the sensational findings of obedience in the famous experiment? "Yeah but only TEN PERCENT obeyed when a couple of people openly refused.." Apparently not. And I guess there's more money in replicating the horror of obedience, while we just forget about the impact of a few individuals challenging authority.

Ho hum.

I think you are reading a 'gotcha' (presumably of the 'self-conrradictory' type) into the research which isn't actually there.

Numerous exact follow-ons generally duplicating the results bolster the finding. The follow-ons delving into variiables with influence serve to hetter define the findings, not as some counter-indicator. Specifically when new overtly resistant cohort actors were introduced, the unwitting participants weren't necessarily being less obedient to authority overall, they might have been simply being forced to split obedience or choose which authority to obey, as the overtly resiistant cohort actors represent a competing authority.

Remember, the introduced actor cohorts were not 'a few strong individuals (participants otherwise in the dark) acting differently'. The overt rebellion that led to followers mimicking the behavior was an introduced variable, not so much a phenomena occuring in the wild with sufficent regularity to warrant closer scrutiny, i.e. the experiments typically did not go a different way unless that way was actively introduced.

I don't share your view about the finer points of the research being lost and not mentioned. Any mention of the studies with any meat to it at all that I can find mentions the variation in experiments as well as various controversies. Perhaps you can link to some serious reference that neglects these parts?

I didn't intend to trivialize Milgram's research, but the fine points are important. Participants cheated or disobeyed when the authority figure was out of the room, giving orders over the phone, or replaced by a less authoritative un-uniformed person. The majority did not therefore show any intrinsic drive or willingness to commit atrocities just because they had been given the power (or the order) to do so. This is not one of Milgram's conclusions, but it is the sort of thing that people often comment as a result.

IMO the take away message is added to, not changed by, the reversal of results 90-10 when several complicit actors showed leadership in refusing to obey. Societies which promote unquestioning obedience to authority are unhealthy and a slippery slope. No doubt about that. And secondly, in the context of a free society, it is worthwhile to publicly stand against what you know to be wrong, and to support the individual(s) in your group who takes a stand. Those who quietly refused and withdrew from the study did not have the same impact on their peers, and I don't believe one loud dissenter would be sufficient either, to sway the majority. The experiment raises questions about group dynamics, for sure, which would have made for some interesting follow up.

Milgram's subjects were not clearly informed of their right to refuse, and were pressured to continue very clearly, even told "you have no choice but to continue". However they did not face the risk of being incarcerated or physically punished - or punished in any way except maybe the loss of the fee they were paid. In situations where consequences of disobedience are spelled out and are more serious, or the 'free society' has already crumbled, there is bound to be a skew towards obedience (unless the boss is out of sight).

It seems to me that there should be a price to pay for disobedience, any 'teacher' refusing to execute the punishment does so with the knowledge that they then would be punished.. .People fall into a tribal or team mentality quite easily as an instinctual survival strategy(pack survival)....failing to respond properly would certainly have unpleasant consequences...and in a military setting, failure to obey orders could be fatal...but in the pretext of medical research and with the goal of furthering mankind's knowledge, this would justify suspension of normal behavior, to a point of course, which I believe coincides with the results seen....

The military setting has a very special set of conditions. The context of violent force being used is fundamental, the necessity and the training to respond without hesitation to orders given, on which the group's survival may depend. Military justice also has its own set of rules, in which disobeying an order will certainly be punished.

Medical research, OTOH, is part of civil society and subject to its laws. "The goal of furthering mankind's knowledge" is not an exemption from the criminal code and does not 'justify' suspension of normal behavior under the law. The fact you were 'following orders' does not constitute a defense in court, nor exempt a person from personal responsibility and punishment for the crime they committed, although the person who gave the orders is also subject to prosecution.

Milgram found that "almost nobody" complied with the orders when they were told they would be personally responsible for their actions. Maybe that is why the Criminal Code also makes that clear.

I didn't say anything about breaking the law...Inflicting pain on other people with their consent, happens everyday....and people love to watch....

I just want to add that ignorance of the Criminal Code is not a defense. The Criminal Code of Canada is not a difficult read, IMO it is worth reading. US law is probably similar.

It".... The Criminal Code of Canada is not a difficult read, IMO it is worth reading. US law is probably similar. ...."

Ha! I don't know about Canadian law, but here in the US, the Congressional Research Service can no longer count the number of federal crimes. There are some 27,000 pages of criminal statutes which are not complete in and of themselves but reference numerous administrative statutes. There are further criminal statutes that hold people accountable for the regulations of countries with which we have treaties.

It is not an easy read by any means. It may not be an accomplishable read by many depending on their age, words per minute and time they can devote.

Still ignorance is not a legal defence.

Yes, I think you put it in a nutshell this time.

I agree with ArtSmith. Enough to have given you a GA for this one.

+1